Committee advances bill recognizing neural data privacy, expands AI advisory council

Legislative counsel summarized H814 as an effort to recognize individual rights regarding neural information and to adjust the membership and lifetime of the state’s Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council. Committee discussion focused on the bill’s scope, membership changes and a small fiscal impact.

The counsel (identified in the transcript as Committee member) said H814 "starts out with some intent around legislative intent around artificial intelligence" and establishes a new single‑section chapter on individual rights for neural and mental data privacy and protections against unauthorized access or manipulation of brain activity. The counsel also said sections 3 and 4 primarily explain the reason the bill appears before the committee: section 3 alters the council’s membership by adding at least four new members and changing appointing authorities; section 4 directs the council to review uses of AI in health care, human services, education and public finance and to report back to the General Assembly.

The fiscal note discussed in the hearing was small. A committee member quoted the counsel’s summary that the "fiscal notice is no more than $1,800 per year." Members asked whether federal proposals limiting state regulation of AI could affect this bill; the counsel replied that H814 does not itself regulate AI but rather states rights and duties, and so they did not expect the federal measures discussed previously to alter the bill’s basic provisions.

Several members asked for clarification on the kinds of technologies the bill targets. The counsel pointed to neurotechnology and certain wearable devices that can access brain activity, saying the language is intended to protect individuals from unauthorized neural interventions. The committee discussed where the line between medical devices and other commercial wearables should fall; counsel said the bill focuses on recognizing rights and creating an advisory and review process rather than prescribing device‑level technical standards.

The committee moved to pass the bill after questions and discussion. The transcript records multiple affirmative responses when members were polled, and the committee proceeded to the next items. The motion, mover and second are recorded in the committee discussion but not specified by name in the transcript extract provided.

The committee directed that the council, if extended, report to the General Assembly on whether further delay or removal of the council’s sunset is warranted. The bill will proceed to the next legislative step as recorded in the committee’s motion to pass.